Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder sues Washington City Paper

Redskins owner Dan Snyder filed a $2 million lawsuit Wednesday against the parent company of the Washington City Paper. The suit stems from an article written by City Paper reporter Dave McKenna in November.

In the lawsuit filed in New York, Snyder says that the City Paper has "engaged in an ongoing campaign" to "smear his business and personal reputation," has published more than 50 columns in which he "was the subject of derision, ridicule and/or vilification," and that the November cover story on him "featured an anti-Semitic depiction of Mr. Snyder with horns on his head, bushy eyebrows, and surrounded by dollar signs." The lawsuit claims that the article contained "numerous outrageous, false and defamatory statements of and concerning" Snyder.

"Simply put, no reasonable person would accept the publication of these types of false, malicious, and/or defamatory statements about them or their spouses," according to the lawsuit. "Nor would any reasonable person tolerate an anti-Semitic caricature of himself or herself prominently displayed on the front pages of a newspaper containing false and malicious allegations."

The Washington City Paper's publisher, Amy Austin, responded to the allegations by saying:

"It's extremely unfortunate that Snyder believes it's appropriate to threaten City Paper with litigation because he objects to our coverage. As a 30-year old newspaper and vibrant website committed to both in-depth news reporting and full-throated commentary, we do not believe that using the court system to stifle or chill free speech is ever appropriate. In this case, it’s especially shabby: As a well known public figure, Snyder has more than ample ability and resources to respond to coverage he does not like, including through his significant public relations apparatus. Lest there be any doubt, we have offered him a forum to do so in our pages, and that invitation stands. Should he elect to actually file a lawsuit, we have directed our counsel to defend the case vigorously."

Snyder said in the lawsuit that any monetary damages recovered would be given to groups devoted to assisting the homeless.

Again - Not trying to be an apologist for Snyder. I'm not. I bleed burgundy and gold. The guy has screwed up with "my team" over and over. My point is that if the Skins had three more Lombardis in the trophy case under Snyder's reign, the City Paper wouldn't be running articles blaming him for the vendors selling expired peanuts. (Which is one the "crimes" listed about him.) Instead it would be full of the stories about his charities, how willing he has been to spend on the team and how he does stuff like let Albert Haynesworth use the team jet to fly to his half brother's funeral. It would all be sunshine and gumdrops from the media around here. I don't think he should be given a pass for anything he has done that is wrong with the team or in his public life. He has screwed up, big time. However, I'll stand by my belief that if the team was successful on the field, this cottage industry of constantly writing everything negative possible about the guy wouldn't exist.

From the time Gibbs left the first time until Snyder purchased the team, the Skins had a .380 winning percentage and plenty of terrible personnel decisions. (Shuler? Westbrook? Andre Johnson?) Since Snyder brought the team, a .447 winning percentage. Not acceptable. Not good enough by any stretch but if anything, really just continuing the trend that started after Gibbs left.

Snyder has added too many seats, but FedEx is a mess because of Cooke as far as I am concerned. He built it on the cheap so it could be done before he died. It got built there because he made too many enemies to build it elsewhere (And naming it Raljon? Seriously?)

At 6-2 the Zorn hire was being called brilliant. At 4-12 a disaster. Same guy right? His record is what the hire is judged on. Exact same thing with the Broncos and McDaniels.

Most of the last TWENTY years has been brutal. I still love my team though.

One of the things that the article specifically said was "Dan Snyder... got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications" is flat out wrong.

If that statement is false, he has a case. He'd still have to endure a depo where his entire life is examined, as his damages are based on the damage to his reputation. It's often not worth it for people to go through that. I only commented because the excerpt made it seem like he was complaining about negative opinions expressed about him, which are not actionable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.